Estes Park Opinion

United Way recovery grants offer hope

Posted:
02/13/2014 01:23:10 PM MST

After the flooding in Estes Park last fall, we, like everyone else in the community, did our best in a seemingly impossible situation. There was the long, quiet, Thursday night when we had no idea what to do. There was the uncertain Friday when we seriously considered simply walking away.

Saturday, we realized being part of this community is who we are, and moving forward with recovery efforts was our only option. We recognized a responsibility to keep our staff employed doing the work of recovery so they could keep their families here, and kids in their school.

Sunday we started shoveling mud.

There has been incredible moral support, but this unanticipated rebuilding has put an enormous strain on our resources. We are not unique.

As winter settled in, the burden of flood repair strained all available financial resources, and compromised roads led visitors elsewhere. Estes Park became a community 'on the edge'.

The good news is there are options. We applied to United Way of Larimer County's Small Business Recovery Fund, and are grateful to have been accepted. These grants will not get us off the edge, but they will help pull us back from it. Our staff may not get the hours they hope for, but they are employed, and we strive to keep it that way.

According to the National Restaurant Association the average restaurant operates on a 4 to 6 percent profit margin. That margin is not one that allows for error, or disaster. If you are in a busy restaurant of 200 diners, just 10 of them are likely generating profit for the establishment. Restaurateurs do not do this for the money, but for the love of people and the art of feeding them.

Advertisement

We strongly encourage other affected local businesses to apply for the second round of these recoverable grants . The application deadline is Friday, Feb. 21. Go to uwaylc.org/sbrf to download the forms. These grants from the United Way can pull Estes back from the edge so we can have a strong 2014, with all of our favorite local haunts open and thriving, and not just a memory.

Rob and Julie Pieper

Poppy's and Mama Rose's

Vote to protect Lot 4

Last week the board voted to sell a portion of our open space. Now it is up to us to save it.

Lot 4 is a hot topic of debate for residents of Estes Park. Many of us love our town. We feel we live in paradise because we have a great community and we're surrounded by beautiful scenery. Some of us moved here to escape a hectic city life.

We stay here because we love the outdoors. We put up with the obnoxious tourists, the fires, and the flooding because this is our home.

Advocates of Lot 4 point out that there can be an impressive amount of money earned from selling off the land. There is also the promise of job creation from development. But at what cost? We can put a price on acreage, but we can't put a price on the scenery, the wildlife, and the serenity that the open space creates.

We love our town. We love our scenery. Let's not destroy what we love by demolishing nature in favor of expansion. Protect our paradise. Vote to prevent the development.

Katrina Evans

Estes Park

Lot 4 is not appropriate for open space

My husband, Greg Rosener, and I are very passionate about open space. I am a nationally recognized artist... I paint mountain landscapes. Greg initiated and then facilitated the sale of Lily Lake and it's surrounding area (over 400 acres) to Rocky Mountain National Park... it took over two years and an act of Congress. It was worth every minute of that extreme effort, don't you think? Greg is an Estes Park high school graduate... his family has been here for over 67 years. We have worked on economic stability for our town for more than 30 years. We are committed and heavily invested in the well being and future of our community.

Lot 4 is the last viable commercial property of it's size and runs along the backside of Safeway and the upper tier of Stanley Village — the largest commercial development in Estes Park. It is not appropriate open space. It is not a great place for picnics, hiking and horse trails, or even a good place for the elk to graze.

Lot 4 is appropriate for the EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center and the millions and millions of dollars for much needed revenue it will bring to our hospital and medical centers so they may continue our great services, to our town to fix our badly damaged infrastructure and to the entire community for so many reasons. And, it is not just money. We are talking about a fitness program that everyone — from our children to our seniors — will benefit from.

Vote yes to the EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center and no to open space on Lot 4 on the April 1 ballot!

Cydney Springer

Friend of the entire community of Estes Park

Don't change what's made Estes, Estes

Let's set aside for the moment all of the economical arguments around lot 4 - what a view is worth vs. financial gain for the town. We all love Estes for many reasons and don't want to alter what makes our community so great.

If we look back at history, we might find some guidance for the decisions that will affect our future. F.O. Stanley is certainly a prominent figure in our town's history and someone I imagine would have a lot to contribute to today's discussion.

Stanley first came to Estes looking for help with his ailing health. While here he fell in love with the beauty and wanted to share it with others. With his grand guest house he also brought new technologies to Estes. He lit the town with electricity and made way for the latest in transportation. And let's not forget how he collaborated with others to bring some grand ideas to life, such as RMNP.

How does any of this apply to our current situation?

The new EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center will bring people here to improve their health and I'd venture to say that at least some of those people will fall in love and want to come back. Take a look at the wellness center related videos at epmedcenter.com and you'll see the kind of high-tech equipment to be used at the new center. During the planning of this project EPMC has been collaborating with more than their official partners in the project. They've met with the recreation district and health and wellness related business owners to establish cooperative relationships and ensure that services aren't duplicative.

So what's in it for us?

Well of course we can pay for personal care at the center itself but we'll also have similar, low-tech versions of the center's programs available to us at a much lower cost at the town recreation/community center. Your personal doctor can take advantage of having the latest wellness technologies minutes away and expand his/her training around wellness related issues. That can only mean you'll receive better care from your physician. While maintaining the diverse mix of fitness, health and wellness options we currently enjoy, we'll be introduced to some exciting new community programs brought about by many players coming to the table.

What would old F.O. Stanley think?

I can't imagine he'd be anything but thrilled with the prospect of such an establishment being built in the same stately neo-Georgian style as his iconic hotel. He'd be happy to know that the glimpses we'll have of the new buildings won't change that striking view coming into town of white and red against the mountain-side and bright blue sky. I think he'd give his approval.

So decide for yourself - will you vote to take advantage of this opportunity to continue the legacy that helped make Estes what it is today?

Dee Robinson

Estes Park

Estes Park - the new Telluride?

The EP Trail editorial of Feb. 7 promoting development in the open space around the Stanley - Lot 4 - caught my eye today. It states that if the vote for development succeeds, "it will be a signal to other investors that Estes Park is not only Mountain Strong but open for business - meaningful businesses, the kind that pay well and are not dependent on tourism or any particular season."

Current Estes Park businesses that depend on tourism - hotels, resorts, restaurants, etc. - are, by this definition, not meaningful. The author of the editorial is at least not shy about declaring that the majority of current Estes Park businesses are meaningless in this vision. What is meaningful to this editor? The "other investors" to who will get the signal if Lot 4 is developed.

The vision is clear: an end to family owned and operated businesses, who will get a big one-time payout when corporate investors come to turn Estes Park into another Aspen, Vail or Telluride.

Personally, I rather like the seasonal characteristics of Estes Park, and have no desire for it to become the new Telluride.

Peter Gibbs

Estes Park

Anschutz project fantasy

There are X amount of dollars in the pockets of the residents of Estes Park. No matter what you build here. The Anschutz project is not going to pay anybody anything until it has taken in money above and beyond its overhead. Any money coming from the current residents is not a net gain as that money is "already here" and that probably wouldn't cover the overhead anyway.

Does anybody really think that enough people are going to travel all the way to Estes for medical care that they can get less expensively and closer to their own homes? Really? There is going to be a stampede of "athletes" and "others" forsaking state of the art facilities all over the country? Very doubtful at best.

Jeff Carpenter

Estes Park

The Wonderland World of Lot 4

"Curiouser and curiouser!" Cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English.)" Where the Friends of Lot 4 are concerned, we too seem to be living in Alice's topsy-turvey world. Having milked about all they can from rhapsodizing about the "magnificent views" and quintessential conservation values attached to a vacant lot adjacent to the Safeway, the "Friends," four in number, have in recent days turned their guns upon the EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center project. These individuals, none of whom are financial professionals with any experience in the world of business where payrolls do have to be met and books balanced, would have you believe:

That the business model that Phil Anschutz invested 30 million dollars in Anschutz Health and Wellness Center in Aurora is somehow deeply flawed in conception and design and that Mr. Anschutz is, therefore, a misguided philanthropist and investor;

That the dollar return to Estes Park projected by town officials from the sale of Lot 4 and the building out of the EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Center has been concocted out of whole cloth;

That, despite the very existence of the Anschutz/University of Colorado Health and Wellness Center, that there is no empirical scientific research to justify its claims that wellness transforms; and

That John Cullen, owner of the Stanley Hotel and some 20 other properties around the world, and Brian Hedwig, the CEO of the Estes Park Medical Center, are so irresponsible in their respective fiduciary roles as to endorsed a business plan that will make them no money.

Next we are going to hear that the independent third-party analysis prepared by Dr. Martin Shields, Director of the Regional Economics Institute at CSU, demonstrating a substantial dollar return to the town has been somehow similarly "cooked." (This, despite the fact, that these same critics have been calling for an independent third-party analysis for weeks.)

The tactics of the Lot 4 crowd are now abundantly clear. This is a perfect example of the old "bait and switch" ploy that says if you can't sustain a good argument in support of your own announced goal, then just change the subject. Then, for good measure, regardless of your own credentials, throw enough dirt at your opponents and theirs and pray that some of it will stick. Alice was right!

Greg Rosener

Estes Park

Wellness center or hotel expansion?

In recent months we have been bombarded with articles in the local newspaper advocating the sale of publicly owned Lot 4 to the owners of the Stanley Hotel. The key argument appears to be the long term economic health that will be brought to the community by the construction of a Wellness Center. This Wellness Center will purportedly bring high paying jobs, and wealthy year around visitors to Estes Park. It will also save the Estes Park Medical center by generating increased revenue. Guess What? The contract signed by the city to sell Lot 4 to Stanley interests does not guarantee that a Wellness Center, the kingpin of these arguments, will ever be built. That's right! All that the contract requires if the Estes Park Medical Center does not raise the $4,000,000 - $5,000,000 needed to build the center, is that the Stanley interests pay the remaining $650,000 of the appraised value to the city. John Cullen has not guaranteed that he will build the Wellness Center if the EPMC fails to raise the funds. What will be certain if the voters approve the sale of Lot 4, is that the Stanley interests will own 6.88 acres of currently publicly owned land, rezoned for accommodations use. You can read the details of the contract under "contract" on the city of Estes Park web site regarding the Anschutz Wellness Center.

If you believe that expansion of the Stanley hotel on 6.88 acres of publicly owned land is good for the city long term, then by all means you should support the sale of Lot 4. If, however, you believe in the long term economic benefits a potential Wellness Center will bring to the community, a few more critical questions need to be asked. 1. Given the information in the first paragraph, will a Wellness Center actually be built? 2. If the Wellness Center is not built, where are the high paying jobs being used as justification for this land sale? 3. If the Wellness Center does get built add the following question. You are a wealthy business person from Chicago getting concerned about your health and decide you should spend time at a wellness center. It is the middle of winter, and you can choose to go to a center in Estes Park, Arizona, California, or a powder snow resort such as Telluride in Colorado. Where would you go? Attracting year around guests is a key assumption of the stated economic benefits in terms of employment, and benefits to the EPMC. How realistic is this?

Luckily, the citizens will have a vote in the matter on April 1st. They can choose to Sell Lot 4, preserve Lot 4 under a conservation easement, or retain status quo by not supporting either initiative. It is our right and duty to look beyond the hype, ascertain what is factual, and then vote for the alternative that we think is in the best long term interest of Estes Park.

Ed Hayek

Estes Park

Economic development showdown in Estes Park

The town of Estes Park is reaching a turning point. The well-established vacation town is asking its residents to vote on two important issues on April 1. They boil down to this:

Should the Town of Estes Park sell a piece of commercial property (Lot 4) behind Safeway village for development?

Should Lot 4 be preserved as either open space or with a conservation easement?

These are big questions because they could mark a turning point in the town, following closely in the footsteps of the country which appears to be turning its back on economic development.

The Town of Estes Park has a buyer for the commercial property in question. For the purchase price of around $1.35 million, the Anschutz Wellness Center would be built on the 6.88 acres.

A few facts about this sale:

The Anschutz Wellness Center would be built on 2/3 of Lot 4 (including parking). 30% of the lot must be kept natural and it would be the far east end, across from Finley Heights and bordering Steamer Drive.

As the building plan stands, it would not block the historic view of the Stanley Hotel from either Highway 34 or 36.

The building would, however, block the view of the unsightly back of Safeway from the deck of the Stanley Hotel.

Building the Wellness Center would create a $15 million construction project in Estes Park.

The numbers for revenue to the town come from estimations (as all new businesses put together), but they are on the low side.

Through the sale of the lot, over $1.3 million in revenue would go to the town to help restore the infrastructure damaged and destroyed by the September 2013 flood.

Approximately 60 year around jobs would be created (20 EPMC, 40 Stanley Hotel).

An increase in sales tax revenue to the town.

The Estes Park Board of Trustees voted unanimously to put the lot 4 issue on the ballot.

Estes Park Medical Center staff voted to support the project.

If Lot 4 is preserved, as a group of citizens would like (most of whom own property bordering or in the neighborhood of Lot 4), these things would happen:

The Town of Estes Park would lose over $200,000 in annual taxes.

The Town of Estes Park would further lose $67,000 in "pillow taxes" (a tax on hotel rooms in Estes Park). Per year.

The Town would lose $15 million in revenue expected to be spent during the building process of the Anschutz Wellness Center.

All told, the estimation is $20 million would be lost to Estes Park over a 10 year period.

If the land is put into a conservation easement, the land would never (ever) be able to be developed, no matter what is best for future generations. On the flip side, if the land is developed, it can never go back to the state it is currently in.

A few questions to ask:

What is best for the Town of Estes Park? Revenue from a known source which would bring jobs to the struggling economy after the devastating flood of September 2013 or leaving a piece of prime real estate in the town vacant?

Creating jobs or creating open space on a piece of commercial real estate?

Allowing a private company to come into Estes Park and generate more tax revenue, or maintaining a vacant lot?

With an aging population in Estes Park, is it better to promote wellness, or keep 6.88 acres for open space when we are already surrounded by over 1,000,0000 acres (that's 1 million).

Should the residents give in to a few "not in my backyard" people who are playing hardball politics to "save" the lot, or standing up for the responsible development of lot 4 and bringing a strong business to Estes Park?

These two issues go on the ballot in April, to be voted on by residents. There are letters in every edition of the two local papers (Estes Park News and Estes Park Trail-Gazette), with quite a bit of incorrect information.

Christopher Reveley, M.D. (who has not practiced in Estes Park), wrote in a Feb. 7, 2014 letter to the editor: "responsible organizations and individuals do not invest millions of dollars on blind assumptions" (disputing the figures available for the investment of Anschutz Wellness Center), and "in the case of the proposed wellness center at the Stanley Hotel, the people of Estes Park are the investors. We are being asked to hand over precious, town owned vacant land..." He leaves the impression the taxpayers are somehow paying for this, when in fact, the town will receive $1.35 million for the sale of the property.

The friendsoflot4.org group wants questions answered about every single statement the developers have put forth, and yet, when a business is started, it's not up to the residents to question whether that business will thrive or struggle, it's up to the investors. The Friends of Lot 4 group claims the main business in Estes Park is tourism, and yet, they want to restrict a business which will bring more tourists to Estes Park, saying Lot 4 will be for the tourists instead (even though it would bring zero revenue to the town).

If the Friends of Lot 4 were truly concerned about the "open views across meadows" that allow wildlife viewing, there are far more areas in town where the elk roam and those vistas are superior to the backyard of Safeway.

Know your facts and think about what is best for the entire community, not just a few people. The April 1 election will be by poll, not mail in ballot, so make sure to mark your calendar and make the effort to get out and vote.

Article Comments

We reserve the right to remove any comment that violates our ground rules, is spammy, NSFW, defamatory, rude, reckless to the community, etc.

We expect everyone to be respectful of other commenters. It's fine to have differences of opinion, but there's no need to act like a jerk.

Use your own words (don't copy and paste from elsewhere), be honest and don't pretend to be someone (or something) you're not.

Our commenting section is self-policing, so if you see a comment that violates our ground rules, flag it (mouse over to the far right of the commenter's name until you see the flag symbol and click that), then we'll review it.